The following appeared on CNS News September 17.
Judge Vaughn Walker, the now-retired federal judge in San Francisco who nullified California’s Proposition 8 in 2010, said if judges really are umpires, they must sometimes “move the strike zone” in order to champion social issues like same-sex marriage.
“Case by case, what judges do and must do is take account of the pitcher and the batter in the legal arena, watch the windup, the throw, the curve, and the delivery and then, where they believe appropriate, move the strike zone,” Walker wrote on Aug. 25 in the University of Illinois Law Review.
But Walker, flouting Justice Antonin Scalia and other originalists and strict constructionists, said that “judges not only make law, but cannot avoid doing so.”
“Many judges and politicians say that judges should act like umpires in the judicial arena and simply ‘call balls and strikes,’” Walker wrote in the article, titled “Moving the Strike Zone.”
“These judges and politicians have convinced a large portion of the U.S. public that judges should act this way and, therefore, should not make law but instead interpret the Constitution using so-called ‘originalism’ or ‘strict constructionism.’ But is it even possible for a judge to simply act as an umpire?” Walker wrote
In 2010, Walker overturned California’s Proposition 8, ruling that the voter-approved ballot initiative violated the Constitution’s equal protection clause by defining marriage to be the union of one man and one woman.
In his article, Walker said federal judges must “reflect the common understanding of the day” and that “clear and fixed legal rules” do not exist.
“There is no fixed ‘strike zone,’” Walker wrote.
The former chief federal judge for the Northern District of California, Walker has drawn criticism for not disclosing his homosexuality until after he retired from the federal bench in 2011 — not during the 2010 trial on same-sex marriage.
In the article, Walker said judges are well-suited to “reject or correct” laws that are based on “discredited understandings” or “dogmas born of myths and unsubstantiated beliefs.”
“Courts are particularly well suited in some situations for law making even on fundamental issues,” he wrote. “Unlike elected officials, judges, particularly federal judges, are not looking to the next election for vindication or retention of their positions,” he wrote.
“Although a courtroom is hardly a laboratory suitable for scientific experimentation, factual premises that underlie many social, economic, and political policies that have been legislatively enacted are exposed in a courtroom in way that is not possible elsewhere.
“In the hurly burly of electoral politics, in the halls and hearing rooms of legislative bodies, long-winded and evasive assertions are rarely challenged effectively. But a courtroom is different.
“One prominent litigator has said that the witness stand is a lonely place. It is especially lonely for someone who spouts a racial or gender theory, propositions without credible support, or dogmas born of myths and unsubstantiated beliefs. Yet each of these has been and continues in the present day to be the support for so-called legislative findings or facts that have been enacted into law and that treat some citizens differently and without reason.
“In a courtroom, these findings or facts can be exposed for what they are – propositions born of misunderstanding, bigotry, or intolerance,” Walker wrote.
The image of the judge being an umpire comes from Chief Justice John Roberts, who, during the opening day of his confirmation hearings in 2005, said his “job” as a Supreme Court justice was “to call balls and strikes, and not to pitch or bat.”
To read original story, click here.
Does anyone remember when all elected officials and judges were expected to be of “high moral convictions” and could be removed when proven that they violated those moral convictions?
I remember a discussion I had with the late Congressman Clyde Doyle concerning the possibility, even probability of “Judicial Oligarchy” and my fears of that probablility becoming an actuallity. Guess what, that time is here and now, and amply demonstrated in Walker’s statement.
God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fisher
Walker wants to move the strike zone to better facilitate his homosexual strike intentions.
Corrupt, thoroughly corrupt. We fought a revolution against tyranny much less burdensome than what the judiciary has foisted upon us.
Precisely! Today’s United States would be unrecognizable to the founding fathers. The blood of our war heroes has been shed in vain. Had they known they were dying for Sodom, I daresay they’d have aimed their guns in the opposite direction. . . .
yes that is true…
Judge Vaughn Walker’s remarks are repugnant, but it is better that the repugnance be made manifest like this in order that we may fight it.
Justice Walker is a fine man and I for one appreciate his contributions to a more civil society! His ruling on prop eight is correct, it is a civil ruling in secular society! The church does not accept civil marriage as a sacramental union, hence, no union has taken place! With this reality in mind why is the church seeking to place it’s will on civil society, the church can not have it both ways!! When the church controlled and or ruled western civilization we had one hell of a mess, let us not return the rule of law to the regressive minds of the far right of the three monotheistic religions! We must NEVER forget that the Constitution of these United States of America states the following: all men/women are created equal; and that includes civil marriage for all, yes, even the homosexuals!!! If the Catholic far right wing have a problem with the constitution I strongly suggest they seek status as political refugees in the Vatican City State!!! Yes, love it or leave it!!!
More exclamation points than logic, but at least you’ve learned to curb your capitalization, Thomas. I’m not in the least sorry that your point of view has become so dated and outworn that people are finally seeing through it. As is true for all of us, Thomas, we’ll all be meeting our Lord face to face. Do you truly think he condones homosexuality? Do you truly think our forefathers had homosexual so-called marriage in mind at any time? Are you so delusional that you can honestly be willing to tell Jesus that you stand by what you are writing in this post? God loves us unconditionally and completely, but it is us saying no to God that keeps us from being united with Him for eternity. Do you really want to say no to our all loving and all knowing God? Is being a homosexual more important than God to you?
And does your logic apply to a threesome or a man and a boy? If not why not? What happened to equal rights for all?
“Man”??, TEM; dream on. Walker is a deranged pervert, and has no idea of what manhood is.
Mr. Miles, the Declaration of Independence states the all men are created equal. It is not a document of law. The Constitution of the United States actually did not declare all men and women equal. Remember? They had to amend it so that some of the African Americans that lived here could be counted as a whole person and so they could vote everywhere. Also, it had to be amended so that women could vote. It is now used to deny the rights of the unborn. Also, civil society is not a secular society. Secularism is the most common form of atheism. Civil society usually means the part of society that is not the government. I suppose that is getting smaller.
Judge Walker could not even pass a simple biology test.
In the article, Walker said judges are well-suited to “reject or correct” laws that are based on “discredited understandings” or “dogmas born of myths and unsubstantiate beliefs.”
So that’s what SCCJ Roberts did. He was “correcting” Potus Obama”s
Is this fruit cake for real? His welfare benefits should be stopped and every one of his cases should be redone by REAL judges. We had the same kangaroo-type judges here in Mass. when they became a law upon themselves and forced same-sex “marriages” down our throats. The law is the law and it is up to the judge to enforce in and it is up to us to force the politicians to correct any laws that are against the Will of God. +JMJ+
The function of the judicial branch is not to enforce laws, but to determine if they are constitutional. The enforcement branch is the executive. The executive branch may or may not choose to enforce a given law. The executive and also the legislative branch can rework the judicial or they can impeach members of it.
Editor: I see your in the mood for more gay-bashing. Ho-hum.
Sorry you’re so bored pete. I’ve always felt only boring people get bored, but that’s just my opinion. Since the homosexual contingency which is only about 2or 3% of the entire population of the U.S. is trying to take over the belief systems, school systems and political systems of our entire country, I think this is pretty big news and something all CHRISTIAN people should be VERY concerned about and fight with all that is in us. I can see that it should be of no concern to you, and I sincerely wonder why you bother reading these posts? I would think you would prefer something more antithetical to Catholicsm…Perhaps Catholic Reporter has a website with articles you would find stimulating and readable. Good luck.
peter I don’t know what you are talking about? There is no gay bashing here. Those are false accusations!
Gays bash themselves and then try to blame everyone else for simply pointing out their derangement.
It’s a good thing he retired. Too bad he was allowed to do the damage he did while he was on the bench. Judges making law goes directly against the Constitution.
So, it’s a game? Yes, the rules of a game can and do change. Is the judge willing to take off his face mask and chest plate? But if the players are not allowed to chead by the very nature, not the rules, of a game what allows the judge-umpire to cheat? The venerable judge excludes the players from the privilege of cheating, that is, from violating the rules whatever they may be – a privilege he arrogtes for himself.
For a judge to claim that he can “make the law” is to cheat. For a man to play the game of “judging,” he must first accept that there are rules above him by which he is also judged. As every preadoslescent boy knows, the claim “It’s my ball, so I make the rules” is precisely that, a childish claim that can only shame an adult.
Judge Walker clearly shows why our society has lost the rule of law. When a judge can change the strike zone we have enter the rule of men and are subject to the whims of the day. When one enters the court there should be no surprises as to the outcome because the law is known to all but in Judge Walker’s court it appears the law is only known to him. This is fundamentally the destruction of society.
Our Founding Fathers feared Judicial Oligarchy and this kind of “judge” more than they did foreign powers invasions, and they wrote about it to warn us. Too bad we did not listen!
When a private letter written by a President to thank a Baptist Church for it’s support becomes a basis of Law, we are in deep trouble.
God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fisher
You can whine all you want about “flouting” Antonin Scalia in the Proposition 8 case; it was still the correct ruling. As Judge Walker said in the decision: “Permitting same-sex couples to marry will not affect the number of opposite-sex couples who marry, divorce, cohabit, have children outside of marriage or otherwise affect the stability of opposite-sex marriages.” It was a view shared by the courts in the Golinski case against DOMA, where a Bush appointee in the Northern District of California concurred: “The exclusion of same-sex couples from the federal definition of marriage does nothing to encourage or strengthen opposite-sex marriages.”
I’m quite confident that SCOTUS will concur when they finally address the issue of marriage equality. And 10 years from now people will wonder what all the fuss was about.
In ten years there will be less younger people to worry about the fuss, though many more seniors – a generation without children – to worry about true marriage.
Have you ever met a Farmer who plants their seed where it could not grow or plants their seed on other peoples land? Because planting feels good and is fun?
They also said that legalizing abortion would insure that there would be fewer abortions – another lie.
Chuck did you read what you wrote? – – “Permitting same-sex couples to marry will not affect the number of opposite-sex couples who marry, divorce,..”
This does not make sense.
We can not let homosexuals adopt children – for the sake of the mental health of the children.
Typical rationale for a gay judge.
Don’t use the hijacked term “Gay” to define these poor morally sick people!
God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fisher
No judge has the right to negate a valid state wide election. Of course if it was an election concerning a decision that favored the gay agenda, it would absolutely be considered totally valid by this gay judge!
He did it. The governor and the legislature have not complained. But a county sheriff is not beholden to state or federal officials, and can choose to either enforce or not to enforce those laws, and may also protect his citizens. There are sheriffs who have told the fed law enforcement to stay out of their county or be arrested … no test cases so far though.
Romans 1 (the whole chapter)
Judge Walker is corrupt. His personality gives credit to the argument that homosexual inclination may be a proper issue to consider for certain employment. Walker’s statement that judges make law may be historically correct — such judges always point to Brown v. Board of Education as their prime example of the need to do so — but ethically objectionable. He is nothing but a poseur, seeking to give secular power to his sexual perversities. It seems that homosexuals cannot help but place their sexual proclivities as the glass through which they view everything in life. His decision, while likely lauded in academic circles, is nothing more than a brief advocating the requirement that all accept homosexual sex as normal. Remember, the Nazis took great pains to pass laws, have courts, hearings, judges, and the like, in their efforts to destroy the “Jewishness” of the German State. In effect, Walker would be very comfortable in such an environment, where courts serve to give a mandate to political extremism. His decision is laughable as legal scholarship, and Exhibit No. 1 in the argument as to why America’s judicial system is failing.
What is being addressed here are not mere social constructions. Calling a long-term or even vowed relationship between homosexuals “marriage” cannot make it into what is essentially meant by the term “marriage”. We fruitlessly attempt to accomplish with words what can never be accomplished in reality. The physical potentials for two men or two women to become a unity that produces life are not part of the essential nature of their relationship. Enduring friendship, affinity, loyalty, attraction and even desire can and do exist between individuals of same sex. The physical expression of these “goods” cannot be termed marriage in the same way that a direct physical unity of man and woman is recognized throughout human history as marriage because marriage is a contractual recognition of the role of producing, nourishing and protecting the children that result from a sexual union necessarily of the two sexes. If that contractual union does not produce children, as in the case of sterile partners, we accord that union the same recognition because it is iconically identical, if not in its results. Many societies have always allowed legal dissolution or effective annulment in the case of non-productive marriages. With common-sense understanding of what marriage constitutes, same sex marriage is an impossible contradiction. Of course, as Judge Walker states, judges can “legally” (another abuse of that term) move the “strike zone” of any terminology: the colour spectrum, temperature, our understanding of language. They can call red “blue”. 212 degrees could be called “freezing” instead of boiling. “Up” can be termed “down”. Nothing really changes except the intentional inversion of words; reality persists. To avoid such confusion and self delusion, in the interests of human sanity, why must we degrade the meaning of terms that have a basis in physical reality as well as human history? Our acknowledgment of the humanity and rights of homosexual persons should not rest on the shoulders of this destructive nonsense. I am intentionally not approaching the subject of religious or moral understanding because these venerable topics do not need to be part of this logical, very basic and accessible appeal to mere reason.
Well said, Maria. So very logically and clearly stated. It is indeed sad that there so many are blind in their sins that they cannot see the truth in what you wrote. The unfortunate people who persist in forcing this on society remind me of moths striking against a lightbulb. They may think they’re aiming at the moon, but in reality they’re facing a sizzling extinction. I won’t
go into how their ceaseless fluttering causes so much consternation.
Bravo, Maria! I concur with everything but the last three sentences. The reason for the “insanity” – which should, indeed, be avoided – is precisely because the logical content of “marriage” has been reduced, be reason, to physical realities and human history. The natural events of physical realities have been progressively, if not completely, subordinated to human science, thechnology, power and gtreed. And this subordination is changing the course of history. The reality of marriage finds its source in the original gift of human existence in which God gave himself to humanity and man and woman to each other. This is not a matter of physical reality. And history itself begins with Adam’s rejection of the original gift.
All the attempts to sever the loving God from human existence – contraception, artificial conception, man from woman in the separation of conjugal act from love and thus the separation of body from soul (death!:, eauthanasia, abortion, infanticide, perversion of masculinity and femininity) – all these are sytematic attempt to reconfim that original separation from God by an act of man and an explcit and no open appropriation of death as the one thing that is absolutely man’s own.
But all these things, including same sex marriage, are lies integral to the culture of death. Even here the dissenters are as deaf as they are blind: for they do not see that even death has been conquered and destroyed by Christ, since no one took his life – he laid it down himself… out of love for the beloved. And thus as an example for the husband on how to love his wife.
With all due respect, I do not think that the insanity can be understood, much less avoided unles we look at it from the religious and moral dimension
Well if Judges mus “reflect the common understanding of the day” and that “clear and fixed legal rules”,
prop 8 Should have stood.
Dana, I’m so pleased that you are NOW SEATED AT THE RIGHT HAND OF THE FATHER IN JUDGMENT, I DID NOT LEARN TO CIT BACK ON THE CAP!!! However, I’m very pleased that your are working part time with the FATHER IN JUDGEMENT!!!!! Dana, please you your last name as I do, WHAT ARE YOU AFRAID OF, the far Catholic right wing, I not afraid of them or their FAR RIGHT WING GOD!!!!!
You are condemning your own self for “Fear of the Lord is the beggining of Sanctity”!
We are not judging you, only God can do that, but you should be very afraid because He has made it very clear to us what His judgement will be for those who violate His precepts. Eternal damnation is nothing to scoff about.
May God who you say you don’t fear have mercy on your compromised soul,
Kenneth M. Fisher
Dana, I’m so pleased that you are NOW SEATED AT THE RIGHT HAND OF THE FATHER IN JUDGMENT, I DID NOT LEARN TO CUt BACK ON THE CAPS!!! However, I’m very pleased that your are now working part time with the FATHER IN JUDGEMENT!!!!! Dana, please use your last name, as I do, WHAT ARE YOU AFRAID OF, the far Catholic right wing, I not afraid of them or their so called FAR RIGHT WING god, however their god, I’m sure is a member of the GOP!!!!!!
Thomas, I’m sorry you took it that way. I wrote what I did because I really care, not because I was judging you. I suppose you like to be called by all three names because your mom was always calling you that when you were naughty and you heard it so often you thought it was your first name. Thomasedwardmiles, wait til your father gets home!” Don’t get into such a pucker, Thomas. Also, if I were a Republican, I wouldn’t be ashamed of it, but actually I’ve always been one of those frustrating independents because I vote with my head rather than with my herd instinct. It looks like I won’t be able to vote for any more democrats however, as they have lowered the bar so much by having same sex so=called marriage and abortion written right into their platform that only the most hard core, pro-death people will want to vote for them. Anyway, I just wanted you to know Thomas, that I really do care what happens to you. I’m sorry if you thought anything other than that, because I most sincerely think you’re a very unique person. You have a place prepared for you in heaven, just like rest of us, and we all have a choice of filling it or not. Even if we say no to God, that place will never be filled by anyone else because God loves you that much! He loves all of us and none of us deserve it, that’s for sure. I put him on the cross just as much as the next person. That’s why we need to lift one another up and help one another achieve our place in Heaven. I’d take just a tiny little room way in the back and be glad. Any other option is unthinkable.
Faithful Catholics, through union with Christ in the Holy Eucharist, actually do sit at the right hand of the Father. Why? Because that is where Jesus sits, and Jesus and the faithful are one … maybe not completely but yet truly in union with Him … hopefully, that is. Of course hope is part of who we are.
FEDERAL JUDGES ARE APPOINTED BY THE PRESIDENT.
ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF HOW IMPORTANT THAT WE ELECT A PRESIDENT WHO WON’T APPOINT ANOTHER JUDGE WALKER, ESPECIALLY TO THE SUPREME COURT !! UNLESS ONE WANTS TO ACCELERATE THE DEMISE OF THE FAMILY AND OUR SOCIETY.
So proud of his “gay” community but couldn’t go public until he retired? Job and money come first you know, then when the retirement is in place, time to start the criticism…..phony, phony people.
There have been hundreds of thousands of soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines who gave their lives believing in and defending the principles, morals, freedoms, privileges, rights, laws,and the form/foundation of government that supports our nation. This despicable self-seeking/centered, immoral, incompetent ex-judge who believes in legislating from the bench has by his actions and words laughed at, scorned, and insulted all of those hundreds of thousands of american veterans who died for their country, including those millions of american veterans who didn’t have to give the ultimate sacrifice for their fellow brethern. He had no right to legislate from the bench, over turn the law of the land or don’t enforce it, and boast about it. Our basic american government courses used to teach us how the judicial branch ensures justice for all by following the laws put into place by our government elected legistlators and executive leaders (govenors and president). This man should be tried for breaking the laws due process and morality. I’ll bet he’s pro-death as well!
Bravo! Bravo! Excellent post, Bruce.
Anyone , except those who are fuctional micocephalics, should know that “moving the strikezone” is tantamount to its abolishment,just as making the Constitution a “living and vibrant”entity essentially destroys it. So why don’t those advocates of this nonsense simply say that there should be neither stikezone nor Constitution. This judge and his ilk are pinheads who promote their deviant agendas.
When tyrannical governments pull coups, sometimes they lose. Sometimes they win, but they begin lopping off their own heads right and left.
Judges who LEGISLATE from the Bench, should do JAIL time.
They are breaking the law.
When you vote for IMMORAL politicians they will appoint IMMORAL Judges.
The Judges who are elected – should be impeached if they legislate from the bench. –
breaking the law.
But then, Catholics and people of good will have grown lazy. And its too much work for them to work on an impeachment petition.
It would only take a few recalls to teach all CA judges a lesson.
The judge certainly doesn’t have the skills and abilities to be a major leaguer. In fact his lifestyle only goes to show all he can do at the plate is strike out. If one like he isn’t skilled enough to even get on first base, then cheating like moving the strike zone with each pitch is his only recourse except for stealing after swinging and missing on the third strike. Fifty years ago when we were kids, we used to think of players like this judge as losers. We had real winners and losers as opposed to not keeping scores today. To bad this immoral judge’s decisions hadn’t been thrown out of the judicial game by real professional judges of a higher court. Glad to see his career is all washed up so he can’t cause anymore moral and social disastors of this magnitude.
Sadly, he is causing moral and social disastors of great magnitude.
Pray for him and the America he is trying to destroy.
Viva Cristo Rey!
God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fisher
So this interested party fraud now admits his approach is to rig the out come by “moving the strike zone”.
Can’t wait for the smackdown this disgrace to the bench and his co-consporators are about to receive from SCOTUS.